Re: [Leica] Photos and Art

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

At 11:40 PM 4/11/98 -0400, Mike wrote:
>
>And my parting shot:
>
>Personally, I don't think photographs are art and I don't think photographers
>are artists. One of the more interesting phenomena of recent years--one that
>has gone utterly unremarked upon--is that no sooner did photography become
>accepted as "art" in museums and galleries, than museums and galleries began
>showing photography that is completely divorced from practical or authentic
>photography. The "photographers" who are shown in museums are generally not
>working pros or photojournalists or portraitists or documentary
photographers;
>in many cases, they're not people who would otherwise exist without the
>institutions they feed and that feed them. In fact, what the museums show,
>largely, are merely artists who incorporate photography into their conceptual
>toolkit, rather than real photographers who make it their business to make
>photographs. There are exceptions to this, but it seems largely true.
>
>I'm with David Vestal. I'd rather be called a "photographer" than an "artist"
>any day.
>
>--Mike
> 

Mike,

I apologize for not being as eloquent as you, I do admire your writing. I
completely agree with you on this. Many photographs that are palmed off as
art are created by the same people that welded old junk together, paint it,
and call it art. Occasionally, it comes out looking cool. Usually it's just
old junk. If it makes the person happy, to take a camera and point it at
something and push the button and then call it art, well as long as he/she
doesn't expect anyone else to like it, we cannot fault that person.
Sometimes, these photographic artists have a good sense of balance, color,
and light, and actually end up with pleasing results. But from what I've
seen, it's rare.

:-)

Jim